curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: CURATOR-217?
Date Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:18:30 GMT
Is this on 3.0 or master? Can you create a JIRA with some log output?

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Is anyone seeing fairly consistent failure of the
>
> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti:184
>
> test? When I run from inside eclipse in isolation it seems ok, but running
> a 'mvn test' seems to fail on this test with some consistency. The changes
> for CURATOR-167 certainly haven't caused this to happen.
> cheers
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Scott,
> > I will merge into master.
> > cheers
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Yep, that looks perfect.  Is CURATOR-167 done?  If so, we can just
> >> fast-foward merge it into master now.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
> >> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks Scott,
> >> > Done, would you mind checking the origin/CURATOR-167 to make sure
> that I
> >> > haven't done anything wrong! I have done a git pull on a different
> >> machine
> >> > and it seems to be ok.
> >> > cheers
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > You just force push your branch.
> >> > >
> >> > > If it's your feature branch, and you know you have it in a good
> state
> >> > > locally, you can just force push the remote branch into the same
> >> state.
> >> > >
> >> > > You'd never want to do that to master, a release branch, or someone
> >> > else's
> >> > > branch.
> >> > > On Aug 24, 2015 11:15 PM, "Cameron McKenzie" <
> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Thanks Mike,
> >> > > > That was a good description. The CURATOR-167 branch is definitely
> >> there
> >> > > as
> >> > > > it's been a pull request for the last few months. So, I'll await
> >> your
> >> > > > thoughts in the morning. Alternatively, I can just merge master
> >> instead
> >> > > of
> >> > > > rebasing it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Yea, that's the big downside with rebasing, is that remotes
> don't
> >> > > exactly
> >> > > > > keep up with the history. I'm going to try to explain this
as
> best
> >> > as I
> >> > > > > can, but usually I point people towards this excellent "Git
for
> >> Ages
> >> > 4
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > Up" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ffBJ4sVUb4 -
he
> talks
> >> > about
> >> > > > > rebases at the very very end, around the 1:30 mark.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Essentially, your current version of the branch does not
have
> the
> >> > > remote
> >> > > > > version of the as an ancestor. Which is correct, when you
did
> the
> >> > > rebase,
> >> > > > > you wrote a new commit lineage.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I didn't realize that there was already a CURATOR-167 branch
> >> pushed
> >> > to
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > repo when I gave you those steps. I'll have to look at what's
> >> going
> >> > on
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > a fresh set of eyes in the morning.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
> >> > > > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > I just tried this and obviously I'm doing something
wrong.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > git checkout CURATOR-167
> >> > > > > > git pull
> >> > > > > > git rebase -i origin/master
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > #This gives me a dialog with one commit with pick
> >> > > > > > Save and exit
> >> > > > > > #This gives a merge conflict and leaves me in a detached
head
> >> state
> >> > > (I
> >> > > > > > presume this is ok).
> >> > > > > > Fix up the merge conflict
> >> > > > > > git rebase --continue
> >> > > > > > #This gives me a dialog to commit the changes
> >> > > > > > Save and exit
> >> > > > > > #Everything seems fine at this point. Builds ok, tests
run ok.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > git push
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >  ! [rejected]        CURATOR-167 -> CURATOR-167
> >> (non-fast-forward)
> >> > > > > > error: failed to push some refs to '
> >> > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/curator.git'
> >> > > > > > hint: Updates were rejected because the tip of your
current
> >> branch
> >> > is
> >> > > > > > behind
> >> > > > > > hint: its remote counterpart. Integrate the remote
changes
> (e.g.
> >> > > > > > hint: 'git pull ...') before pushing again.
> >> > > > > > hint: See the 'Note about fast-forwards' in 'git push
--help'
> >> for
> >> > > > > details.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > There have been no changes on the branch since I did
the pull
> >> > before
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > rebase.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Any ideas?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
> >> > > > > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Thanks Mike,
> >> > > > > > > Will give it a spin today some time.
> >> > > > > > > cheers
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Mike Drob <
> >> madrob@cloudera.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> if you're going to tray that, here's what
you want to do
> >> > (assuming
> >> > > > > > command
> >> > > > > > >> line)
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> git checkout CURATOR-167 # start with the
branch that you
> are
> >> > > > changing
> >> > > > > > >> git rebase -i master # rebase the current
branch on top of
> >> the
> >> > > given
> >> > > > > > >> branch
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Cameron McKenzie
<
> >> > > > > > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > Scott,
> >> > > > > > >> > I've been using a similar approach to
Jordan given that's
> >> what
> >> > > I'm
> >> > > > > > used
> >> > > > > > >> to,
> >> > > > > > >> > but I'm happy to try your approach. I'm
going to try and
> >> fix
> >> > up
> >> > > > > > >> CURATOR-167
> >> > > > > > >> > as it will no longer cleanly merge (it's
been sitting
> >> there a
> >> > > > > while).
> >> > > > > > >> So, I
> >> > > > > > >> > should rebase master into the CURATOR-167
branch?
> >> > > > > > >> > cheers
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Scott
Blum <
> >> > > > dragonsinth@apache.org
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > > LOL!  So sorry to hear that.  Yeah,
it's definitely
> >> possible
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > mess
> >> > > > > > >> > > things up badly.  If I'm doing something
particularly
> >> risky,
> >> > > > I'll
> >> > > > > > just
> >> > > > > > >> > "git
> >> > > > > > >> > > branch original" before I start,
so as to leave a
> branch
> >> > > pointer
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > >> > > start point as a safe recovery if
it goes south.  I
> also
> >> use
> >> > > > gitk
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> > > visualize sometimes.
> >> > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > > Another major selling point for
rebase (-i) is that
> it's
> >> > > > *really*
> >> > > > > > >> hard to
> >> > > > > > >> > > merge the wrong branch.  If the
list of commits that
> >> comes
> >> > up
> >> > > > > > doesn't
> >> > > > > > >> > look
> >> > > > > > >> > > basically correct, you probably
did something wrong--
> >> trying
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > rebase
> >> > > > > > >> > onto
> >> > > > > > >> > > the wrong branch will give you tons
of commits, most of
> >> > which
> >> > > > > aren't
> >> > > > > > >> > yours.
> >> > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > > I think what you've been doing is
fine, it's definitely
> >> the
> >> > > > right
> >> > > > > > >> > approach
> >> > > > > > >> > > if you're doing a merge strategy!
 I've just ended up
> >> > > > gravitating
> >> > > > > > to a
> >> > > > > > >> > > rebase strategy over the years for
the reasons I've
> >> > mentioned.
> >> > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM,
Jordan Zimmerman <
> >> > > > > > >> > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> I’ll admit that rebase terrifies
me. I’ve f’d up
> several
> >> > > > projects
> >> > > > > > >> with
> >> > > > > > >> > it
> >> > > > > > >> > >> so I can’t even type the letters
without breaking
> into a
> >> > > sweat.
> >> > > > > > "git
> >> > > > > > >> > rebase
> >> > > > > > >> > >> -i” is a lot safer, though.
Here’s what I’ve been
> doing
> >> -
> >> > let
> >> > > > me
> >> > > > > > >> know if
> >> > > > > > >> > >> it’s OK. For branches that
are off of CURATOR-3.0, I
> >> never
> >> > > > merge
> >> > > > > > >> > master. I
> >> > > > > > >> > >> only merge CURATOR-3.0: “git
merge CURATOR-3.0”. In
> >> fact,
> >> > > > should
> >> > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> > have a
> >> > > > > > >> > >> branch naming scheme to enforce
this?
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> -Jordan
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> On August 24, 2015 at 11:30:50
AM, Scott Blum (
> >> > > > > > >> dragonsinth@apache.org)
> >> > > > > > >> > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> Correct. When I say "main" branch
vs. "feature"
> branch I
> >> > just
> >> > > > > mean
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> > >> stable branch everyone is working
against (3.0 or
> >> master)
> >> > > vs. a
> >> > > > > > >> feature
> >> > > > > > >> > >> branch where you're actively
working.
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> You'll get to a point in development
where you'll
> think
> >> > "Hey,
> >> > > > > there
> >> > > > > > >> are
> >> > > > > > >> > >> changes on the main branch I'm
working against that I
> >> > really
> >> > > > need
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> > pull
> >> > > > > > >> > >> into my feature branch." At
that point (particularly
> if
> >> you
> >> > > > have
> >> > > > > an
> >> > > > > > >> svn
> >> > > > > > >> > >> background) you'll be tempted
to merge the main branch
> >> into
> >> > > > your
> >> > > > > > >> feature
> >> > > > > > >> > >> branch. I would suggest not
doing that, as it makes
> the
> >> > > history
> >> > > > > > very
> >> > > > > > >> > muddy
> >> > > > > > >> > >> to follow. Instead, my workflow
is usually more like
> >> this:
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> Suppose I'm working on CURATOR-218.
It was originally
> >> > > branched
> >> > > > > off
> >> > > > > > >> 3.0,
> >> > > > > > >> > >> and I want to pull in new changes.
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> git remote update
> >> > > > > > >> > >> git rebase -i origin/CURATOR-3.0
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> This pulls up an editor that
gives me the list of
> >> commits
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > rebase.
> >> > > > > > >> I
> >> > > > > > >> > >> would typically exit out of
the editor to at this
> point
> >> to
> >> > > > accept
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> > >> commit list, but if I'm so inclined,
I'll do things
> like
> >> > > > reorder
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> > list,
> >> > > > > > >> > >> or squash commits like like
"wip" or "minor reformat"
> >> into
> >> > a
> >> > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> > curated
> >> > > > > > >> > >> set of logical commits.
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> Once you exit the editor, git
goes through and applies
> >> each
> >> > > > > commit,
> >> > > > > > >> one
> >> > > > > > >> > at
> >> > > > > > >> > >> a time, to the head of the target
branch. It's like
> >> picking
> >> > > up
> >> > > > > your
> >> > > > > > >> > commit
> >> > > > > > >> > >> chain and dumping it at the
end of the target branch,
> >> as if
> >> > > all
> >> > > > > > your
> >> > > > > > >> > work
> >> > > > > > >> > >> had been done against what's
now the head of that
> >> branch.
> >> > > > You'll
> >> > > > > > may
> >> > > > > > >> > have
> >> > > > > > >> > >> to fix conflicts along the way,
but usually not much
> >> more
> >> > > than
> >> > > > if
> >> > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> > did
> >> > > > > > >> > >> it as a merge.
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> I'd encourage us to try this
out a couple times and
> get
> >> a
> >> > > feel
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> > >> rebase flow. It's a little more
to get your head
> around
> >> at
> >> > > > first,
> >> > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> > the
> >> > > > > > >> > >> upside is you end up with really
easy to follow commit
> >> > > > histories,
> >> > > > > > >> which
> >> > > > > > >> > >> makes it way easier to untangle
problems later if they
> >> crop
> >> > > up.
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:17
PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >> > > > > > >> > >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > Can you explain this in
detail? For me, I have some
> >> > > features
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> are
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > 3.0.0 based so I’m treating
CURATOR-3.0 as a kind of
> >> > > master.
> >> > > > > The
> >> > > > > > >> true
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > “master” is Curator
2.x only, right?
> >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > -Jordan
> >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > On August 24, 2015 at 11:10:08
AM, Scott Blum (
> >> > > > > > >> dragonsinth@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> > )
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > BTW: I noticed a couple
of new commits
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > (ba4b5d8cb1f9733d3901b0b619528454d3dbf8c8
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > & 2343daf29388566b0efa0b0a2ad21574fb534a27)
where
> 3.0
> >> is
> >> > > > > getting
> >> > > > > > >> > merged
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > into feature branches.
Almost every project I've
> been
> >> on
> >> > we
> >> > > > > don't
> >> > > > > > >> tend
> >> > > > > > >> > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > do that as it leads to
confusing history (this isn't
> >> just
> >> > > > > > >> aesthetic,
> >> > > > > > >> > it
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > can
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > get harder for tooling
to figure out what happened).
> >> If I
> >> > > > want
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> pull
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > changes from the main branch
into my feature
> branch, I
> >> > > would
> >> > > > > > >> typically
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > *rebase* my feature branch
against the main branch.
> >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at
12:05 PM, Scott Blum <
> >> > > > > > >> dragonsinth@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > > Yeah, 217 & 161
were the first two big things in
> >> 3.0.
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015
at 9:53 AM, Jordan Zimmerman
> <
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> OK - Also, is
CURATOR-161 complete? The issue is
> >> still
> >> > > > open
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> > Jira.
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> On August 24,
2015 at 12:47:21 AM, Cameron
> >> McKenzie (
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com)
wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> Yes, I merged
it in last week some time.
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24,
2015 at 3:25 PM, Jordan
> Zimmerman <
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Scott, did
CURATOR-217 get merged into the new
> >> > > > > CURATOR-3.0?
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > -Jordan
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message